Wisconsin Concealed Carry Stops Armed Robbery

I would love to see the statistics on just how many of those 30K deaths by gunshot came via a licensed and legal gun owner handling his own gun.

As for part two, I don't know. I would suspect there are many instances that fall into that category across the US. I would love to see those statistics on thwarted robberies as well. Plus the geographical locations of these robberies. I would like to compared the thwarted robbery numbers compared to the current gun laws in that city/state. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

And? Those 30,000 people are less dead?

Explain to me how you can except 30,000 gun deaths a year. Seriously. Suicide, homicide, whatever. 30,000 gun deaths a year. You're good with that? No problems? No issues to be dealt with there? The solution is more fucking guns? We don't have a fucking problem with gun deaths when there are 30,000 gun deaths a year?

Guns thwarting crime? Yeah, show me all those stories. Are you fucking serious? Is there anything any news outlet likes better than a gunfight where the good guy comes out on top? I've seen a bunch of those, haven't you? Bullshit.

Bullshit indeed!

You agree? With what you think I said? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

He doesn't get it. That is FUNNY! What an idjit!

And? Those 30,000 people are less dead?

Explain to me how you can except 30,000 gun deaths a year. Seriously. Suicide, homicide, whatever. 30,000 gun deaths a year. You're good with that? No problems? No issues to be dealt with there? The solution is more fucking guns? We don't have a fucking problem with gun deaths when there are 30,000 gun deaths a year?

Guns thwarting crime? Yeah, show me all those stories. Are you fucking serious? Is there anything any news outlet likes better than a gunfight where the good guy comes out on top? I've seen a bunch of those, haven't you? Bullshit. Originally Posted by timpage

You don't get it, Timmy. Gun laws won't keep guns away from criminals any more than prohibition kept booze away from drunks. We can have a completely safe society, but there would be no freedom. Is that really what you want?

No you don't get it. When freedom, as you put it, endangers the lives of everyone, then who is free?

That should go down as the stupidest post in the history of ECCIE, and any other board. So you really don't like liberty at all, do you, Assup? Everybody and everything should be controlled. You probably loved the old Soviet Union, Comrade Assup!

That should go down as the stupidest post in the history of ECCIE, and any other board. So you really don't like liberty at all, do you, Assup? Everybody and everything should be controlled. You probably loved the old Soviet Union, Comrade Assup! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Here, let me say it again.

"That's why your opinions and your analysis of the President's actions don't mean shit.

You constantly misunderstand what's being said. This basic failing could be corrected if you asked for clarification instead of trying to supply it yourself."

No one but you has said everybody and everything must be controlled. The topic that you started is about 1 crime being thwarted. 1 crime against 30,000 deaths.

Can you read? Of course you can.

Can you think? Obviously not.

When you turn the relevant and noteworthy question of "When do your freedoms infringe on my freedoms?" into a rant about that person hating liberty and wanting to control everything and everybody, you have exposed yourself.

Not as in the incident in the park on the 4th of July that had your ass playing host to every dick in the holding tank at the county lockup.

Exposed as in once again, you have proven what a twat you are and how insignificant you, your opinion, and your 16000 plus posts truly are.

You can have the last word since you can't possibly have anything to add.

Douche-bag.

Merry Christmas, Comrade Münchausenman.

That should go down as the stupidest post in the history of ECCIE, and any other board. So you really don't like liberty at all, do you, Assup? Everybody and everything should be controlled. You probably loved the old Soviet Union, Comrade Assup! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I was being serious. You threw insults. That's why nobody takes you seriously. Whenever anyone challenges the efficacy of your POV, you fling feces like a chimp in the zoo.

I love liberty. I love freedom. I fought for yours. But I also believe in the freedom to live in a world where people are free to be civilized too. Obviously that isn't liberty in your book. Well you're entitled to your opinion. And I'm entitled to mine.

Homo asshole.

You were spouting leftist cliched claptrap. I called you on it. It was stupid, and remains stupid. Your idea of freedom is more government control. Seriously? When has more government ever resulted in more freedom? Don't bother answering, I know it will be bullshit, Comrade Assup!

The huge difference between civilians and police/soldiers is that the trained "pros" have their asses covered by law. The civilians don't. If you shoot the wrong person for whatever reason as a civilian, you will at best have your ass sued off and at worst you will go to jail Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

"Munch" you might want to "revisit" this statement ... police are covered by the same law of self-defense that civilians are required to follow, and the taking of a life (or shooting another person) by police who ought not to have been shot is considered a "seizing" by the SCOTUS and when it is unreasonable, which it would be if incorrect, then the police officer is liable civilly, and in some instances depending upon the facts the police officer's agency can also be lilable to the citizen or his or her heirs/dependants.

Officers face state prosecution or Federal prosecution, if not both, for wrongful deaths or wrongful shootings.

As for training, I will agree that LE customarily has far more training, not only from a skill perspective, but also from a perspective of informing them about tactics and choices to minimize "collateral damage" and maximize success in the confrontation with a firearm..... which does not necessarily mean discharging the firearm, which is the last step in the "use of force continuum," and disreably a last resort ... which some civilians are unable to comprehend .... military and police training involving handguns is somewhat different and the environment in which police operate is also different for the most part, although as servicemembers get more urban and building entry training there will be similitarities with different "rules of engagement" as to potential liability and a different "code" under which they operate.

example:

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/s...hington-122412

we may never read or hear under what circumstances this 19-year-old was carrying a weapon to a bar party or why, but IMO that is a result of the poor judgment that is too frequently exercised by immature and irresponsible people, which cannot be "tested" or even "discovered" when making the decision to hand someone a weapon.

A law controlling handguns didn't help the dead guy or the wounded one.

You were spouting leftist cliched claptrap. I called you on it. It was stupid, and remains stupid. Your idea of freedom is more government control. Seriously? When has more government ever resulted in more freedom? Don't bother answering, I know it will be bullshit, Comrade Assup! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How do you feel about smoking in public places?

Dont bother answering. I know it'll be bullshit, Herr Whiny!

And? Those 30,000 people are less dead?

Explain to me how you can except 30,000 gun deaths a year. Seriously. Suicide, homicide, whatever. 30,000 gun deaths a year. You're good with that? No problems? No issues to be dealt with there? The solution is more fucking guns? We don't have a fucking problem with gun deaths when there are 30,000 gun deaths a year?

Guns thwarting crime? Yeah, show me all those stories. Are you fucking serious? Is there anything any news outlet likes better than a gunfight where the good guy comes out on top? I've seen a bunch of those, haven't you? Bullshit. Originally Posted by timpage

I didn't say it was acceptable, I said the gun control proposals every talks about are and would be ineffective. Please explain to us your proposal to prevent these 30K death per year then.

Guns thwarting crimes? Sure, every day in this country. For instance here's just one



Its in the OP of this thread in case you missed it.

You threw insults. That's why nobody takes you seriously. Whenever anyone challenges the efficacy of your POV, you fling feces like a chimp in the zoo.
.........
Homo asshole. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There is a lot of that "flying" around .. that flinging of "feces like a chimp in the zoo."

Usually when someone lacks a substantive response ....

..... to a legitimate comment with credible substantive support.

Like anything COF was presenting in this point. The feces he's flinging is based on the fact that he finds my point of view unthinkable. That makes it bad. That makes it untenable. That means I should not have the freedom to have or express an opinion like that. "Leftist claptrap" I believe was what he said. "Stupid" was something else.

Credible substantive support is in the eye of the beholder, LL. As is typical of our political discourse here and in the real world, we can't even agree on what "support" is credible. So that renders everybody's opinion, support, links, etc., absolutely worthless. INCLUDING YOURS!

Ergo, you're full of shit. And COG is a liar.

And I'm telling the truth.

SO THERE!

Back on the subject ... I understand Wisconsin home defenders are still TRENDING Romney...